Why I Don't Believe In God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I agree with that, but I never saw my mom as an evil person. She's not as bright as she used to be. Her church friends and bible study group cited biblical references for why my brother Kenny died, and she believed them. She cries as she talks about it. "At first I wanted to be mad at God, but he knows best. He has a plan." Pretty sick plan, if you ask me. Obviously, I don't believe it was the plan of a god. People contributed to his death, and people justified it. People who never met him gave her the reasons for how he had been "bad". It doesn't give her comfort, and she has become cruel to me when I say it's not a nice way to think about the son she loved for 34 years.

I can't place the blame on texts. People either drink the kool-aid or they don't. Scary times for those of us who don't.

---

I think you got it upside down. I think these are the least scary times of history in that regard. The delusional will never achieve hegemony again. They are a laughing stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

I think you got it upside down. I think these are the least scary times of history in that regard. The delusional will never achieve hegemony again. They are a laughing stock.

---

I wasn't saying these are the scariest times in history. Scary nonetheless. Religion is the norm in america, not the minority, but I hope you're right and that we won't slide back into worse times.

Sometimes around my city, it's like a body snatchers movie. They single out the ones who haven't been changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

The evidence says otherwise, gay teens in general have higher suicide rates and rates of suicidal ideation. However, when anti-homophobic teaching material is introduced, and social support groups, like gay teen peer groups, are present the suicide rate is significantly reduced. This suggests that there is a strong role in anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay motivated social exclusion in contributing to the teen suicide rates.

Religious discourses in the US have contributed unambiguously to giving authority to an anti-gay, and sometimes violently so, rhetoric that invades all levels of society, from the family to the state. For example, we can look at anti-gay legislation in Africa and we can see Christianity and Islam being the main driving force behind the justification of these laws.

---

If I say that one’s depression isn’t the discrete effect of another’s opinion, and you say the evidence says otherwise, you are stating that there is evidence that demonstrates one’s depression results from someone else’s opinion. I demand you produce this evidence. You are essentially saying that there exists a mechanism by which my personal opinion can, simply by virtue of its existence, inflict depression upon another person. We both know no such evidence exists, so I wonder why you state the evidence says otherwise.

If a person develops cancer and kills himself to avoid the pain and suffering, it does not follow that cancer causes people to kill themselves. Persons have agency of which they cannot be liberated simply because someone else holds a belief.

Holding a belief that some behavior A is wrong is not synonymous with another behavior B. Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with mistreatment of homosexuals.

Your statements about anti-gay rhetoric and social exclusion are misguided. If I am waiting on a cab and I wait for one with tinted windows, it does not follow that tinted windows compel me to enter cabs. Can a person make a decision about social exclusion? Yes. Can social exclusion compel a person to make a decision? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

You are making light of a real documented problem of social exclusion.

---

No, I am not making light of anything; I am making a reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates the falsity of a proposition by logically pursuing it to absurdity. This is the business of reason. Just because you don’t like the results doesn’t mean I’m making fun of something. Propositions are either true or false, not true when they look serious and false when they look silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Would you really suggest that people have no effect on the behaviors of others?

---

I would say that person A cannot compel a behavior in person B simply by holding a belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

That it is impossible for one person to make the existence of another more difficult, to the point that they increase the seeming viability of suicide as an option.

---

It is, of course, true that person A can make life for person B more difficult, so much so that person B prefers to kill himself. It does not follow that person A can compel person B’s suicide. Person A can, however, murder person B. Does incarceration cause one to kill oneself? Or does one kill oneself because one prefers death to incarceration?

However, it is NOT possible for person A to make person B’s life more difficult simply by holding a particular metaphysical belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

What about the link between higher suicide and being sent to religious sexual conversion camps? Even if we remove the problem of suicide, there is definitely something wrong with camps that have been shown to have no success at changing sexual orientation, but engage in everything from shock therapy to libido reducing drugs to forcefully change sexual orientation. This despite the fact that the evidence suggests that sexual orientation is as much a product of development, and as generally immutable, as hair or eye colour. It's certainly more complicated and nuanced than eye or hair colour, but that doesn't change that it is something that people do not choose or change willingly.

---

This passage seems entirely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I find it mildly hypocritical that you would criticize the efforts of atheist to disabuse someone of theistic beliefs as being intensely insensitive, but the efforts of religious institutions to criticize and attempt to change something that is not even a choice is perfectly OK.

---

You could only find it hypocritical if you misunderstood hypocrisy. I never stated that having an atheistic worldview could cause theists to kill themselves. You’re the one purposing thought assassination. And last I checked, no person can, in this country, be compelled by any organ of the state to attend a religious conversion camp. Moreover, no person can be compelled to attend such a camp simply by virtue of the existence of another person’s metaphysical belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

This is especially problematic when the ideas are internalized. The Christian is not mutually exclusive from the homosexual, there are many gay Christians, and what does it do for the mental health of a child to be raised in a tradition where they are to continually see themselves as defective and sinful without any way out.

---

This is irrelevant. Moreover, it seems to suggest that you are bothered simply by the existence of Christianity because it results in some number of psychologically conflicted homosexual persons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

This is a strawman, Darcy never suggested anything of the like.

---

No, it isn’t. Darcy wasn’t a part of the original discussion. The argument wasn’t a straw man but the original issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

All he claimed is that an environment of pervasive anti-gay attitudes, which Christianity contributes to, contributes to a suicidal state of mind. And the empirical evidence is on his side, since this is the consensus of the APA. To dispute Darcy's claim, as he formulated it, is to claim that we have no responsibility in the way we treat others.

---

This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Let's offer another thought experiment involving responsibility and causation. If in the dead of winter I go out and spray the road in front of me with water so that it becomes icy. Then a car, driving faster than it should, comes down the road and crashes. Certainly, the driver is partially responsible, he should have been driving more carefully, but I would still have a burden of responsibility for increasing his risk through a deliberate action I could easily avoid.

---

This is a bad analogy. You are comparing holding a particular belief to physically sabotaging a roadway, and guess what? Your example leads to murder or, at the very least, manslaughter. You can’t make someone choose to kill himself by icing the roadway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

In the same sense, someone who goes out of their way to use Christian doctrine to justify their abuse and dehumanization of another human being is partially responsible for the death of kids who are affected by that rhetoric.

---

Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with going out of one’s way to justify abuse and dehumanization. This is another straw man. No one has proposed dehumanization. In fact, dehumanization occurs when you render human beings little more than automatons in a deterministic system of behavior, which is what YOU’RE doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

It's not bashing to say a person shouldn't hate a person who isn't hurting anyone.

---

The two major fallacies are contained so beautifully in this single sentence.

1). Saying X is wrong, yes even sinful, does not equate to hating. The very manner in which this statement is formulated is an attempt to bully the terms and force one's set of value on all others.

2). Who says the behavior (or inclinations) under discussion do no damage. If a behavior damages a person, damages their relationship to God and thereby damages their relationship to all other people, can it truly be said to "not hurt anyone?" And if this situation truly does exist, would not the most hurtful, loveless thing be to tell someone, "It's okay, nothing is wrong?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togre

The two major fallacies are contained so beautifully in this single sentence.

1). Saying X is wrong, yes even sinful, does not equate to hating. The very manner in which this statement is formulated is an attempt to bully the terms and force one's set of value on all others.

2). Who says the behavior (or inclinations) under discussion do no damage. If a behavior damages a person, damages their relationship to God and thereby damages their relationship to all other people, can it truly be said to "not hurt anyone?" And if this situation truly does exist, would not the most hurtful, loveless thing be to tell someone, "It's okay, nothing is wrong?"

---

This is well said, and I agree totally, but I know that this group will try to tear these words apart. You see....the liberal mind doesn't play fairly. They will demand for tolerance, while on the other hand, they are intolerant of other's opinions and thoughts. They say that one can believe in creationism, as long as evolution is the only thing taught in schools. There will be no "winning" in a debate in this group, unless it is their opinion that is given in to.

"This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs."

You are suggesting much more than that. You are suggesting that our actions and attitudes towards others have no impact on their mental state or their decision whether to kill themselves or not. Its a silly standpoint since we know that bullying contributes to the rate of suicide particularly among young people. Go into a psychiatric ward and start demeaning and insulting people. Call them ugly, stupid, failures, abominations. See what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

"This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs."

You are suggesting much more than that. You are suggesting that our actions and attitudes towards others have no impact on their mental state or their decision whether to kill themselves or not. Its a silly standpoint since we know that bullying contributes to the rate of suicide particularly among young people. Go into a psychiatric ward and start demeaning and insulting people. Call them ugly, stupid, failures, abominations. See what happens.

---

So...you are saying that if you are bullying me, then the likelihood of me committing suicide will increase?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

"This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs."

You are suggesting much more than that. You are suggesting that our actions and attitudes towards others have no impact on their mental state or their decision whether to kill themselves or not. Its a silly standpoint since we know that bullying contributes to the rate of suicide particularly among young people. Go into a psychiatric ward and start demeaning and insulting people. Call them ugly, stupid, failures, abominations. See what happens.

---

Affirming the proposition "homosexuality is wrong" in no way constitutes an action toward others.

People are not automatons executing programs written by their environment. I freely admit that we can contribute to an environment that someone would prefer to avoid by committing suicide. I do not advocate creating these types of environments. But holding a metaphysical belief does not imply any variety of behavior. To state that lying is wrong doesn't mean that one persecutes liars, nor does it mean that one is responsible for the suicide of a liar.

I just don't understand how you can't see this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Wrong! Anyone making an assertion has the explanatory onus insofar as the assertion is concerned.

---

This is incorrect. Consider the assertion: "There is no evidence that God exists." This requires no justification or explanation whatever. The only way to counter such a statement is to falsify it by providing evidence to the contrary. If anyone wishes to dispute it, they will have to make a positive assertion that such evidence in fact exists and then present said evidence.

Quote:

---

Traditionally, "nonsensical" refers to language having no sense or meaning. Since you have understood the content of my post, you cannot mean that it was this variety of nonsense,

---

No, you don't get to pick one narrow definition of a term and then pretend it must be (or must not be) what I meant. By "a nonsensical scenario" I meant one that is logically incoherent—one that makes "no sense." Your scenario was nonsensical in that it postulates two people who have intimate knowledge of one another (the closest in the world to each other—call this proposition 1), and yet are apparently oblivious to each others' central beliefs on issues some consider the most important facing humans—the existence of a supreme being and the afterlife (call this proposition 2). The two propositions are incompatible and mutually contradictory. Thus the scenario makes no sense. It is nonsensical. Understand now?

Quote:

---

so I suspect you mean that the situation is inconsequential, which would seem wrong.

---

You are not capable of anticipating my thought. I would not have dreamed up such a tortured reading of a perfectly straightforward concept like "nonsense."

Quote:

---

Also, I think you ignore the fact that a person on his deathbed will necessarily act in accordance with his past behaviors.

---

So you are saying that someone on their deathbed cannot or will not conceive a new way of behaving or a new belief? On the contrary, I suspect many on their deathbeds arrive at new knowledge or perspectives. I'm not sure why you would make this dubious and unsupported assertion.

Quote:

---

I think it's also presumptuous that this person will just take your previous beliefs for granted. I think death has the affect of making people reconsider things.

---

First, I will assume that you meant "effect" since "affect" is nonsensical in this context (just trying to reinforce a concept—nonsense—you seem to find challenging. Please note that I have understood exactly what you meant, and yet what you wrote was, strictly speaking, nonsensical. Also note that this is precisely the situation you said was impossible in the second quotation of your text above!). So, in your scenario, the person on their deathbed is thinking something like: "I've known you for a long time and throughout those years you have been a confirmed atheist. Despite knowing you to be (1) a person with long-standing beliefs that are a matter of deep conviction and (2) a person not inclined to sudden, cataclysmic shifts in your belief system, I will nevertheless ask if today you have become a theist and now believe in an afterlife." Sounds vanishingly unlikely to me—and truly sad if anyone would actually spend their last moments in such a fruitless discussion. No, your scenario is simply nonsensical (see definition above if you are still confused.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Nietzsche defined atheism as "..the awe-inspiring catastrophe of two-thousand years of training in truthfulness that finally forbids itself the lie involved in belief in God."

I don't think you fully grasp what Nietzsche thought, which was that atheism was an excruciating revelation.

---

So, is Nietzsche the only authority on what atheism is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

If I say that one’s depression isn’t the discrete effect of another’s opinion, and you say the evidence says otherwise, you are stating that there is evidence that demonstrates one’s depression results from someone else’s opinion. I demand you produce this evidence. You are essentially saying that there exists a mechanism by which my personal opinion can, simply by virtue of its existence, inflict depression upon another person. We both know no such evidence exists, so I wonder why you state the evidence says otherwise.

If a person develops cancer and kills himself to avoid the pain and suffering, it does not follow that cancer causes people to kill themselves. Persons have agency of which they cannot be liberated simply because someone else holds a belief.

Holding a belief that some behavior A is wrong is not synonymous with another behavior B. Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with mistreatment of homosexuals.

Your statements about anti-gay rhetoric and social exclusion are misguided. If I am waiting on a cab and I wait for one with tinted windows, it does not follow that tinted windows compel me to enter cabs. Can a person make a decision about social exclusion? Yes. Can social exclusion compel a person to make a decision? No.



No, I am not making light of anything; I am making a reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates the falsity of a proposition by logically pursuing it to absurdity. This is the business of reason. Just because you don’t like the results doesn’t mean I’m making fun of something. Propositions are either true or false, not true when they look serious and false when they look silly.



I would say that person A cannot compel a behavior in person B simply by holding a belief.



It is, of course, true that person A can make life for person B more difficult, so much so that person B prefers to kill himself. It does not follow that person A can compel person B’s suicide. Person A can, however, murder person B. Does incarceration cause one to kill oneself? Or does one kill oneself because one prefers death to incarceration?

However, it is NOT possible for person A to make person B’s life more difficult simply by holding a particular metaphysical belief.





This passage seems entirely irrelevant.





You could only find it hypocritical if you misunderstood hypocrisy. I never stated that having an atheistic worldview could cause theists to kill themselves. You’re the one purposing thought assassination. And last I checked, no person can, in this country, be compelled by any organ of the state to attend a religious conversion camp. Moreover, no person can be compelled to attend such a camp simply by virtue of the existence of another person’s metaphysical belief.



This is irrelevant. Moreover, it seems to suggest that you are bothered simply by the existence of Christianity because it results in some number of psychologically conflicted homosexual persons.





No, it isn’t. Darcy wasn’t a part of the original discussion. The argument wasn’t a straw man but the original issue.



This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs.



This is a bad analogy. You are comparing holding a particular belief to physically sabotaging a roadway, and guess what? Your example leads to murder or, at the very least, manslaughter. You can’t make someone choose to kill himself by icing the roadway.



Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with going out of one’s way to justify abuse and dehumanization. This is another straw man. No one has proposed dehumanization. In fact, dehumanization occurs when you render human beings little more than automatons in a deterministic system of behavior, which is what YOU’RE doing.

---

It's not the belief alone that causes the problem. If a belief is kept private and to one's self, of course it's not harmful. If a belief compels someone to take actions against someone else, in this case someone who believes homosexuality is wrong and therefore ridicules someone who is homosexual, I don't think it can be denied that those actions can have a profound effect on a person. Do you deny that the abuse, whether physical or verbal, of someone due to a difference in that person can effect that person and cause that person to take actions he would not otherwise take? When it comes to suicide, I'm not sure one can ever point to one single cause and say definitively, "That's why he committed suicide, and that's the only reason why." I think it's also hard to say the opposite, that something like bullying (which can be caused be acting on certain beliefs) has no impact on someone's mental state.

Also, you demand evidence from Pip to show beliefs cause suicide. I'm sure it goes against logical debate rules or whatever and that you'll just hide behind that excuse, but can you show any evidence that suggests that beliefs don't cause suicide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

So...you are saying that if you are bullying me, then the likelihood of me committing suicide will increase?

---

Yes. Is that really so hard to believe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Affirming the proposition "homosexuality is wrong" in no way constitutes an action toward others.

---

Getting a bit hypocritical. In that case "Christianity is wrong" in no way constitutes an action against others. Christianity is an abomination and can lead to people being shunned and hurt by others, so Christians should try to stop being Christians. By your logic, there is nothing wrong with those statements, they don't and can't hurt anyone, and they certainly couldn't be insulting enough to lead to any sort of depression.

Homosexuals aren't second class citizens. A person can't say it's justifiable to treat them less well than the religious peers they defend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

So...you are saying that if you are bullying me, then the likelihood of me committing suicide will increase?

---

Does Christianity condone bullying? Is it all on the up-and-up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I wasn't saying these are the scariest times in history. Scary nonetheless. Religion is the norm in america, not the minority, but I hope you're right and that we won't slide back into worse times.

Sometimes around my city, it's like a body snatchers movie. They single out the ones who haven't been changed.

---

We don't have unified religion in America. You can rest assured that there will be no unified religion in America. Apart from that, the separation of church and state is firmer than ever, apart from gossip sources that are unaccountable and come up in the media because they are scandalous.
Apart from that, for every ten people that tell you they are religious, nine tell you so because they think it's convenient to them, and they didn't even read the books. You are too preoccupied about this. They'll never come back as a power source to control our society. The point is that our religious poeple of thousands of denominations and non-denominations don't even care about that, except for PTL preachers making money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

We don't have unified religion in America. You can rest assured that there will be no unified religion in America. Apart from that, the separation of church and state is firmer than ever, apart from gossip sources that are unaccountable and come up in the media because they are scandalous.
Apart from that, for every ten people that tell you they are religious, nine tell you so because they think it's convenient to them, and they didn't even read the books. You are too preoccupied about this. They'll never come back as a power source to control our society. The point is that our religious poeple of thousands of denominations and non-denominations don't even care about that, except for PTL preachers making money.

---

My son's public school dropped science and social studies and suddenly started sending home "grammar" lessons made up of bible verses. Separation of church and state? I would like to know where so I can go there.

reconsidered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

This is absolutely wrong. The assertion "there is no evidence God exists" has an impossible explanatory burden that involves either demonstrating a perfect knowledge of all possible locations of evidence, which would be complete and perfect knowledge of the universe, or some monstrous inductive argument that a PhD logician wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. This is precisely the sort of statement that no philosopher would make since it's completely indefensible. Besides there's obviously evidence for God. Evidence doesn't mean proof. There's also such a thing as bad evidence, which is still evidence. There's no question that the Bible constitutes some form of evidence. Maybe you don't think it's sufficient evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. So what you're saying here is you can make assertions without backing them up just as long as they're really bad ones.

.

---

I have no idea why so many new atheists say, "There is no evidence that God exists" when it is clearly untrue. Perhaps Wyatt can explain it to me. Obviously, there are written eye witness accounts of miracles, of the Resurrection, of God appearing out of burning bushes, and of personal revelation. I think the new atheists might mean to say, "There is no 'scientific evidence' that God exists." This might be true, depending on how we define science. However, the notion that science constitutes the only form of "evidence" flies in the face of common sense (we all believe our own eyes, for example) and all evidentiary rules. Most history (for example) is non-scientific. It relies on written, eye-witness accounts -- very similar to the Bible. There might be as much "evidence" for the Resurrection as for the Battle of Issus (although, of course, it's reasonable to demand more evidence before accepting supernatural occurences, because they are so incredible).

It is also possible, of course, that atheists mean, "There is no persuasive (or convincing) evidence that God exists." However, the reams of evidence are so substantial that saying there is "no evidence" is ridiculous.

Christians will try to pick apart science and materialism but then when someone like Sathya Sai Baba, a reputed miracle worker, comes along they will resort to the same arguments used by atheists who resist the notion of Christ's divinity.

Furthermore, Christians follow the exact same line of reasoning when they reject the revelations of Muhammed that atheists follow when they reject those of Moses.

As much as most atheists fail to realize the consequences of their atheism, the same is true for their believing counterparts who fail to acknowledge the full ramifications of their faith. If the scientific method is relaxed or altogether discarded, well then anything goes. If the Bible then also the Koran and the Book of Mormon. If Christ's miracles then those of Sathya Sai Baba too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

reconsidered

---

. . . Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Christians will try to pick apart science and materialism but then when someone like Sathya Sai Baba, a reputed miracle worker, comes along they will resort to the same arguments used by atheists who resist the notion of Christ's divinity.

Furthermore, Christians follow the exact same line of reasoning when they reject the revelations of Muhammed that atheists follow when they reject those of Moses.

---

Huh? I never said it was unreasonable to "reject the revelations" of anyone. In fact, I'm an atheist myself. I just think it's unreasonable to say there's no evidence for something, when there is book after book after book, filled with evidence (although none of it may be persuasive).

If a jury hears all the evidence in a case, they can decide "guilty" or "not guilty". But if the case has gone on for days, and dozens of witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, it would be silly for jurors to claim there had been "no evidence presented".

I can just picture St Peter reading all that I've written here back to me on the day of judgement, Bien and Stuntpickle standing arms-crossed shaking their heads from behind the gate. Hahaha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I can just picture St Peter reading all that I've written here back to me on the day of judgement, Bien and Stuntpickle standing arms-crossed shaking their heads from behind the gate. Hahaha.

---

Haha. I would have to pass on heaven if I saw them standing there. That would be the great thing about hell. All of my friends would be there. The best musicians too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Huh? I never said it was unreasonable to "reject the revelations" of anyone. In fact, I'm an atheist myself. I just think it's unreasonable to say there's no evidence for something, when there is book after book after book, filled with evidence (although none of it may be persuasive).

---

That's not evidence, but claims. None of it's reproducible. The jury you mention below wouldn't even hear that evidence, because it's only hearsay.

There's no evidence that God exists because he's supposed to be invisible, incorporeal, all-powerful, etc. etc. There's also no evidence that he doesn't exist for the same reason, plus the additional problem of proving a negative. That's where modern religion has it all over the ancients. They had gods and so on that essentially ceased to exist when we learned the reality behind the phenomena the gods were created to explain. This new God, however, can have any claim made about him that the claimant finds convenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I have no idea why so many new atheists say, "There is no evidence that God exists" when it is clearly untrue. Perhaps Wyatt can explain it to me.

---

I did not say this as a statement of fact. I only offered it as an example in the abstract of an assertion that does not require justification or evidence. By the way, I am not an atheist by at least one common definition. I do not deny the existence of God, for example, mostly because I don't have enough interest in this particular notion of a supreme being to bother about it one way or another. I believe in no supernatural phenomena.

Quote:

---

Obviously, there are written eye witness accounts of miracles, of the Resurrection, of God appearing out of burning bushes, and of personal revelation. I think the new atheists might mean to say, "There is no 'scientific evidence' that God exists." This might be true, depending on how we define science.

---

Perhaps I should have said "no credible evidence." That takes care of your objection.

Quote:

---

However, the notion that science constitutes the only form of "evidence" flies in the face of common sense (we all believe our own eyes, for example) and all evidentiary rules. Most history (for example) is non-scientific. It relies on written, eye-witness accounts -- very similar to the Bible.

---

There is little credible evidence that the Bible is based on eye-witness accounts. Wasn't all of the New Testament, for example, written by people living well after the events described took place? The case of the Old Testament is clearer still, right?

Quote:

---

It is also possible, of course, that atheists mean, "There is no persuasive (or convincing) evidence that God exists." However, the reams of evidence are so substantial that saying there is "no evidence" is ridiculous.

---

Fanciful accounts of miracles and mysterious events are not evidence, they are fancy. Even if taken at face value, there is no reason to associate any of these accounts of mysterious "events" with the particular types of divine intercession inferred from them. Hence no evidence is correct—but I will make it "no credible evidence" if you prefer.

By the way: Is that Canyon Lands in your avatar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

. . . Why?

---

Now now! Everyone has the right to reconsider what they wish to post. And even if someone beats them to the punch and quotes them before they withdraw their statement, like Ecurb did in this case, I still consider it out of bounds to respond once an author demonstrates the intention to reconsider a post.

I don't disagree, Wyatt . . . well, I don't on the "out of bounds" part. I'm just curious as to why he reconsidered it. It seemed on par with all his other posts. Hell, it was less abrasive than a lot of his other posts, so I assume he didn't remove it because he felt it was too "offensive."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Does Christianity condone bullying? Is it all on the up-and-up?

---

No...TRUE Christianity does not. I get quite frustrated with people even in my own congregation that seem to be over judgmental. I've been over judgmental myself, but I'm working on it. There are many...even most...Christians that think that they are better than others. I'm no better in my actions than any, but I'll condemn my own actions as well. There are man actions that are wrong, but none of them makes the person an abomination. There is a preacher who just left our congregation that I feel is a bully, and I was very outspoken that I think that the elders were wrong in not marking him as such. People have the right to make choices in their lives (short of those choices that hurt others). But there is a line that must be drawn as to when and where (and to what extent) that someone can voice their opinions about sin. But stating a belief is not bullying.

The humility you express in this latest post is admirable and Christian in the truest sense of the word Bien.